The Predictive Cluttering Inventory is an assessment tool that is used to diagnose cluttering. The Predictive Cluttering Inventory was developed by David Daly and Robert Cantrell, and the variant of their assessment protocol appeared in 2006 (Van Zaalen-op’t Hof, Wijnen, & Dejonckere, 2009). Still, the assessment became known as Daly’s Predictive Cluttering Inventory was formulated with references to the findings of 60 fluency specialists and improved by Daly (Myers & Bakker, 2014). Thus, the purpose of the assessment is to identify whether there are indicators or signs of cluttering in the person’s speech. The assessment is actively used to diagnose cluttering as a fluency disorder because there is a limited number of similar assessments used by specialists (Myers & Bakker, 2014). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the assessment and the population, for which it was developed, as well as to identify potential weaknesses of the tool and support the opinion with references to the literature review on the use of the Predictive Cluttering Inventory in the practice of fluency specialists.
The Predictive Cluttering Inventory consists of 33 items that were formulated with references to 50 symptoms of cluttering identified previously by fluency specialists. These items are organized to cover such four constructs or domains as Pragmatics, Language-Cognition, and Speech-Motor aspects, as well as Motor Coordination-Writing Problems (Van Borsel & Vandermeulen, 2008). Each of 33 items should be scored according to the 6-point Likert scale. The highest possible score is more than 190 points, and any score that is higher than 120 points indicates cluttering. A score that is lower than 120 but higher than 80 points allows speaking about the clutteringstuttering problem (Van Borsel & Vandermeulen, 2008, p. 313). Therefore, it is possible to state that the population for which the assessment is developed is normed, and it includes those persons who can suffer from both cluttering and stuttering. However, even though the scale and expectations regarding the population are presented clearly, there is little information regarding the assessment’s reliability and validity. In their article, Van Borsel and Vandermeulen (2008) state that there is a concern regarding “the validity of the Predictive Cluttering Inventory as an instrument to aid in the diagnosis of cluttering” (p. 315). From this perspective, the reliability and validity of the assessment need to be further tested.
The first problem associated with administering the Predictive Cluttering Inventory is that the results can be non-valid as Van Borsel and Vandermeulen (2008) reported the “extremely high” number of clutterers in their study (p. 315). Another problem is that all 33 items presented in the inventory are measured equally. The assessment tool provides a variety of signs that are associated with cluttering, but some of these symptoms can be considered as being more important to diagnose the problem than the others are. Therefore, the researcher should pay much attention to particular items and their scores while analyzing the results to receive the full picture. Still, this inventory can be used in practice because it covers a wide range of symptoms that are important to be determined before administering any other test. Therefore, I would use the assessment tool in spite of several weaknesses as one of the regularly applied instruments.
It is important to concentrate on reviewing the recent studies in which the Predictive Cluttering Inventory was used as an instrument, or certain aspects of the assessment tool were tested. Van Borsel and Vandermeulen (2008) examined cluttering in persons having Down syndrome, and they found that about 80% of the population can be discussed as clutterers. This number is unexpectedly high, and it can be not supported with references to the results of other tests. Therefore, the validity of the Predictive Cluttering Inventory is not proved in this study. Van Zaalen-op’t Hof et al. (2009) concentrated on proposing the effective diagnostic assessment that could be used for differentiating between cluttering and stuttering because these conditions should be regarded as connected but having different symptoms. The researchers asserted that the Predictive Cluttering Inventory is a good tool in terms of including the variety of possible indicators of the discussed disorders (Van Zaalen-op’t Hof et al., 2009). However, this assessment tool also allows identifying the clutteringstuttering disorder. Therefore, it is not valid enough to be used for diagnosing the communication disorders.
In their study, Myers and Bakker (2014) focused on examining how specialists determined the levels of severity in relation to cluttering and what tools were identified as promising to work with patients suffering from cluttering. The researchers noted that the focus on severity is important in order to analyze the communication activities and specific behaviors (Myers & Bakker, 2014). Moreover, it was argued that the Predictive Cluttering Inventory lacks the focus on the severity aspect, and it is a weakness of the tool. Thus, the articles provide the background for understanding the reliability and importance of the discussed assessment tool.
In spite of the fact that the Predictive Cluttering Inventory is an effective tool for screening the communication disorder symptoms, it cannot be used for diagnosing. Therefore, this inventory is helpful to indicate the symptoms that can be associated with either cluttering or stuttering. However, the use of additional assessment tool to diagnose the disorder is expected.
References
Myers, F. L., & Bakker, K. (2014). Experts’ saliency ratings of speech-language dimensions associated with cluttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 42(1), 35-42.
Van Borsel, J., & Vandermeulen, A. (2008). Cluttering in Down syndrome. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 60(6), 312-317.
Van Zaalen-op’t Hof, Y., Wijnen, F., & Dejonckere, P. H. (2009). Differential diagnostic characteristics between cluttering and stuttering: Validation of the revised Predictive Cluttering Inventory. Cluttering Identified, 3(1), 43-55.